Anthony J. Saldarini Pharisees, Scribes & Saducees in Palestinian Society a Sociological Approach the Biblical Resource Series 1997

PHARISEES, SCRIBES AND

SADDUCEES

IN PALESTINIAN S O C I E T Y

Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society A Sociological

Approach

ANTHONY J. SALDARINI

WILLIAM B . EERDMANS PUBLISHING COMPANY GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN / CAMBRIDGE, U.K. DOVE BOOKSELLERS LIVONIA, MICHIGAN

For Maureen

First published in 1988 by Michael Glazier, Inc. 1935 West Fourth Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19805 © 1988 by Michael Glazier, Inc. All rights reserved Foreword by James C. VanderKam © 2001 by Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company This edition published jointly in 2001 by Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company 255 Jefferson Ave. S.E., Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503 / P.O. Box 163, Cambridge CB3 9PU U.K. www.eerdmans.com and by Dove Booksellers 30633 Schoolcraft Road, Suite C, Livonia, Michigan 48150 Printed in the United States of America 06 05 04 03 02 01

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Saldarini, Anthony J. Pharisees, scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian society. Includes index. 1. Pharisees. 2. Scribes, Jewish. 3. Sadducees. 4. Social classes — Palestine. Bible. N.T. — Criticism, interpretation, etc. I. Title. BM175.P4S24 1988 ISBN 0-8028-4358-1

305.6'96'033

88-31060

Table of Contents

Abbreviations

vii

Chronology

ix

Foreword, by James C. VanderKam

xi

PART I: PALESTINIAN SOCIETY

1

1. The Problem of Jewish Groups in Palestine

3

2. A Sociological Approach

12

3. Social Classes in Palestinian Jewish Society and the Roman Empire

35

4. Social Relations and Groups in Palestine

50

PART II: THE LITERARY SOURCES 5. The Pharisees and Sadducees as Political Interest Groups in Josephus

77 79

6. Josephus' Descriptions of the Pharisees and Sadducees

107

7. Paul the Pharisee

134

8. The Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Mark and Matthew 9. The Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Luke-Acts and John 10. The Pharisees and Sadducees in Rabbinic Literature PART III: INTERPRETATION AND SYNTHESIS

144 174 199 239

11. The Social Roles of Scribes in Jewish Society

241

12. The Place of the Pharisees in Jewish Society

277

13. The Sadducees and Jewish Leadership

298

vi

Contents

Glossary of Sociological Terms

309

Indices: Subject

315

Author

317

Ancient Sources

320

Abbreviations in the Notes

Ant.

Josephus' Jewish Antiquities

b.

Babylonian Talmud (followed by the name of the tractate)

BJS

Brown Judaic Series

CBQ

Catholic Biblical Quarterly

CBQMS

Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series

HDR

Harvard Dissertations in Religion

HTR

Harvard Theological Review

HUCA

Hebrew Union College Annual

IDB

Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible

IDBS

Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Supple­ mentary Volume

IESS

International Encyclopedia of Social Sciences

JAAR

Journal of the American Academy of Religion

JBL

Journal of Biblical Literature

JJS

Journal of Jewish Studies

JQR

Jewish Quarterly Review

JSJ

Journal for the Study of Judaism

JTS

Journal of Theological Studies

m.

Mishnah (followed by the name of the tractate)

viii

Abbreviations

NTS

New Testament Studies

NovTest

Novum Testamentum

P.

Palestinian Talmud (followed by the name of the tractate)

RSR

Religious Studies Review

SBLDS

Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series

SJLA

Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity

SPB

Studia Post-Biblica

SNTSMS

Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series

t.

Tosefta (followed by the name of the tractate)

VT

Vetus Testamentum

War

Josephus' Jewish War

ZAW

Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

ZNW

Zeitschrift fur die neuestestamentliche Wissen­ schaft

Chronology

Year(s) 198 B.C.E. 175-164 168-164 161 152 150-134? 142 141 140 134 134-104 103-76 76-67 63 40 37-4

Events Antiochus III the Great, Seleucid ruler in Syria gains effective control of Palestine from Egypt. Antiochus IV Epiphanes is Seleucid ruler in Syria. Seleucid persecution in Judea, desecration of the Temple, revolt under the Maccabees. Rededication of the Temple under Judas Maccabee. Judas Maccabee killed. Jonathan Maccabee named high priest by Alexander Balas. Founding of the Essene community at Qumran. Jonathan killed and succeeded by his brother Simon. Demetrius relieves Simon of obligation to pay tribute. Simon conquers the Akra. Simon acclaimed as high priest by the nation. Simon killed. John Hyrcanus, Simon's son, is high priest and ruler. Alexander Jannaeus is high priest and king. Alexandra, Alexander Jannaeus' wife, is queen. Hyrcanus is high priest. Ptolemy and the Romans conquer Jerusalem and Palestine. Hyrcanus continues as high priest. Parthian invasion of Palestine. Herod appointed king by the Roman Senate. Herod is king in Palestine. ix

x

Chronology

31 B.C.E.14 CE. 4 B.C.E.6 CE. 4 B.C.E.39 CE. 6-41 14-38 26-36 41 41-44 44-66 66-70 70 70-200 200

Caesar Augustus is Roman Emperor. Archelaus rules Judea. Herod Antipas rules Galilee. Roman prefects rule in Judea and Samaria. Tiberius is Roman Emperor. Pontius Pilate is Roman prefect. Death of Jesus. Emperor Gaius Caligula threatens to place a statue of himself in the Temple. Agrippa I rules in Judea and Samaria. 38-40: Galilee and areas to the north. Roman procurators rule in Judea and Samaria. War against Rome. Destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. Tannaitic period of rabbinic activity. Editing of the Mishnah under Rabbi Judah the

Foreword

The paperback reprint of Anthony J. Saldarini's important mono­ graph, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society: A Sociological Approach, provides an opportunity to revisit the book, to glance at reactions to it, and to sketch what has happened in the field since the hardback version appeared in 1988. It is widely cited and has had a considerable impact on the field. As the subtitle indicates, Saldarini set himself the task of assess­ ing three groups from a sociological perspective: the Pharisees, scribes, and Sadducees. He was not the first scholar to approach ancient Jewish groups with sociological questions in mind; the work of Louis Finkelstein (The Pharisees: The Sociological Background of Their Faith [2 vols.; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1938]), for example, may be noted as an early predecessor in the sociological study of Pharisaism. But Saldarini's was cer­ tainly one of the first and surely one of the most disciplined efforts at understanding the evidence in the writings of Josephus, the New Testament, and the rabbinic literature through the categories used by contemporary sociologists. The overall tendency in scholarship has been to present the Pharisees and Sadducees as groups that were distinguished by their different teachings; this is quite under­ standable because the ancient sources do stress their conflicting views and supply little information for separating them in socio­ logical terms. We do not, for example, know how the Pharisees made a living. There have been many modern attempts to understand what sorts of groups the Pharisees, scribes, and Sadducees were, but these attempts have had their shortcomings. As Saldarini put it: "In most historical reconstructions of Jewish society the catego­ ries used to describe these groups, such as sect, school, upper I wish to thank my colleagues John Meier, David Aune, and Jerome Neyrey for the assistance they gave as I was writing this foreword. xi

xii

Foreword

class, lay leadership, etc. are ill defined or misused and not inte­ grated into an understanding of the overall structure and function­ ing of society" (p. 3). In the book he uses sociological methods and categories and defines his terms with care. 'The Pharisees, scribes and Sadducees as a variety of Jew, as thinkers and as lead­ ers must be seen as part of Palestinian Jewish society and accu­ rately located and described in relationship with other Jewish leaders and social movements from 200 B.C.E. to 100 CE." (p. 4). He does not opt for a sociological approach to the exclu­ sion of others; rather, he employs it in conjunction with literary and historical types of analysis. Saldarini organizes his book in three parts. The first ("Palestin­ ian Society") is devoted to explaining his approach and categories and placing Palestinian society within its larger context in the Ro­ man Empire. Though there are different schools of modern sociol­ ogy, he chose a form of functionalism, that is, an approach which examines the effects that actions have. He was, as a result, con­ cerned less about the beliefs attributed in the sources to the Phari­ sees, scribes, and Sadducees than about their social activities and roles; by focusing on these, he provides a corrective to many ear­ lier studies. For his sociological categories he turned primarily to Gerhard Lenski, who, in his book Power and Privilege: A Theory of Social Stratification (New York: McGraw, 1966), developed a theoretical class system for describing social relations in agrarian empires like those of the Greeks and Romans. Saldarini does not have much to say about why he opted for Lenski as his guide; there are only some general statements about how his model "fits." It should be added that he also uses the work of other sociologists (e.g., S. N. Eisenstadt, J. Turner). An appealing aspect of Salda­ rini's study is that he is fully aware of and sensitive to the danger of imposing modern sociological categories on ancient evidence. As he puts it, "the methods and results of functionalism must be qualified and adjusted in response to the history and literature of the first century" (p. 34; see also p. 48). Turning first to larger kinds of relations in society, he notes that "[a]grarian societies, in contrast to modern industrial societies, are constituted by two major classes separated by a wide gulf and un­ irradiated by a middle class. The two classes are a large peasant class which produces the food to make society run and a small, elite governing class which protects the peasants from outside ag-

Foreword

xiii

gression and lives off the agricultural surplus produced by the peasants" (p. 36). This major divide could result in a poorly func­ tioning society, were it not for what Lenski calls "retainers." These retainers "were mostly townspeople who served the needs of the governing class as soldiers, educators, religious functionaries, en­ tertainers and skilled artisans; it is here we will find the Pharisees and scribes" (pp. 38-39). Although they may appear to be the same, retainers and the modern middle class should not be con­ fused: ancient retainers, unlike the middle class, "lacked any inde­ pendent power" (p. 39). In the first section he deals with evidence for larger groupings in Palestinian society but also with smaller levels of relationships, say, in villages, and the types of networks that existed at the time. In this context he introduces the concepts of honor and shame and patron-client relationships. He thinks that both Jesus and the Phar­ isees were considered patrons by those with whom they interacted (p. 56). Various groups arose within Judaism, groups that were dif­ ferent from the non-voluntary ones resulting from kinship or polit­ ical allegiance; the entities mentioned in the title of the book were examples of such voluntary groups. This first part of the section in­ cludes a string of definitions for terms denoting various kinds of groups and associations of people. Saldarini felt he had to take up the notion of "sect" since it is so often applied in scholarship to groups such as the Pharisees. Here he surveys the seven kinds of sects distinguished by Bryan Wilson in his Magic and Millennium: A Sociological Study of Religious Movements of Protest Among Tribal and Third-World Peoples (London: Heinemann, 1973). The term, if it is to be used, should at least not be allowed to suggest that sectarian groups were withdrawn from political action. Near the end of the first part Saldarini writes: This review of some historical and sociological work on groups and social relations demonstrates the complexity of society and the inadequacy of descriptions of the first century which imag­ ine the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes and Jesus as isolated reli­ gious groups debating matters of belief. Political and religious life were one and each person belonged to several socially oper­ ative units at once, including family, nation, social class, social roles, etc. Any claim concerning Jewish teaching or behavior had major ramifications in all quarters of life and society and

xiv

Foreword

any political, social or religious initiative had the potential to af­ fect the whole people, including the governing class and the em­ pire itself, (p. 73) Saldarini's second part ("The Literary Sources") focuses on the material about Pharisees, scribes, and Sadducees, first in the writ­ ings of Josephus, then in the New Testament, and finally in rab­ binic literature. Beginning with Josephus, he summarizes our knowledge about the historian and explicates his view of society. Josephus wrote from the viewpoint of the governing class; he fa­ vored stability and those who effected or encouraged it and noted individuals or groups only when they became powerful. He sur­ veys the references to the Pharisees (Josephus mentions them fewer than twenty times) and to the Sadducees (mentioned only six times), first in Hasmonean, then in Herodian and subsequent times. While they can often be classified as "retainers," it does seem that at least under Queen Alexandra (76-67 BCE) they were more powerful, a part of the ruling body. The few Sadducees who appear in Josephus's works belong to the governing class. Al­ though Josephus does not depict the scribes as an organized group, his several references to them are examined. Saldarini devotes chapter 6 to those familiar passages in the War and the Antiquities in which Josephus provides descriptions of the groups, especially of what they are supposed to have believed. After scrutinizing all of the material about the Pharisees in Josephus, he concludes: "Whatever influence they achieved, they usually achieved with the help of a powerful patron and they entered into coalitions with other groups among the upper classes in order to gain influence and move those who had power" (p. 120). Sadducees were mostly from the upper class. Saldarini often notes how little information we actually have about either group in Josephus. Against some modern scholars who claim that Josephus changed his attitude to­ ward the Pharisees in the time that elapsed between the War (writ­ ten in the 70's) and the Antiquities (written in the 90's), he argues that the historian is consistent in both works in presenting them, neither in a pro- nor an anti-pharisaic way, but in light of his domi­ nant political stance that favored order and stability. Thus, when a group contributed to stable conditions, Josephus wrote favorably of them; when they did not, he was more critical. Also, the Phari­ sees did not transform themselves from being a political body in

Foreword

xv

Hasmonean times to a more sectarian group or table fellowship in the period of Herod and the Romans; they were always involved in politics. The New Testament, which seems to be the source that sug­ gested to Saldarini treating the three groups of the book title, is the subject of chapters 7-9. He begins with Paul, who identifies him­ self as a Pharisee. After attempting to draw some cautious conclu­ sions about what Paul's pharisaism may have meant, he moves on to the gospels, first looking at what Mark and Matthew report about the three groups (chapter 8) and then what Luke-Acts and John have to say regarding them (chapter 9). He focuses particu­ larly on where the groups are said to be active and the issues with which they are alleged to deal. Mark for one puts Pharisees and scribes mostly in Galilee, unlike Josephus; Matthew also has them in Jerusalem. In Luke the Pharisees are part of the governing class in both Galilee and Jerusalem, with the Pharisees being especially prominent as opponents of Jesus in John. The tenth chapter is concerned with the material in the vast cor­ pus of rabbinic literature. There have been strongly divergent views of how its evidence should be used and what the relation of the rabbinic sages to the Pharisees might have been. Works such as the Mishnah and talmuds have more references to Pharisees and Sadducees than the second temple sources do and thus should, one would think, be rich repositories of information about them. But they are much later than the time of the second temple; hence the question of their historical reliability arises. Because of the long­ standing controversy about the matter, Saldarini had to establish a view about the evidence found in rabbinic literature. He thinks that these later texts, each of which has its own concerns and view­ point, should be used with care and not as a "core body" of evi­ dence for understanding Pharisees and Sadducees in the pre-70 pe­ riod. He refers to three types of evidence in the rabbinic texts: (1) "sayings and stories from or about pre-70 sages"; regarding these he concludes: "the rabbinic stories of the second Temple pe­ riod will be read here not as history but as the later rabbinic move­ ment's reconstruction of its earlier history" (p. 201); (2) "anony­ mous laws attributed to the pre-70 period"; these he believes cannot be securely tied to the Pharisees; (3) "texts which mention the Pharisees and Sadducees by name"; most of these tell us noth­ ing about first-century Pharisees. Something can be gleaned from

xvi

Foreword

them for his subject, but the data must be used with full awareness that the rabbinic texts tell us mostly about the interests and con­ cerns of Jewish scholars who lived in the second through the sixth centuries. After analyzing the pertinent material under each of the three headings, he reaches the conclusion that we learn little from the rabbinic texts about second-temple groups. The final part of the book is called "Interpretation and Synthe­ sis," with one chapter devoted to each of the three groups, this time in the order scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees. Saldarini's treatment of scribes includes a survey of evidence from Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Israel before covering the Hellenistic and Roman periods; this allows him to place them in a broader context than the Jewish ref­ erences alone would permit. Scribes carried out many roles but do not seem to have been an organized class. In general, they can be categorized as retainers, though the highest among them may have belonged to the ruling class and thus exercised power. There is no evidence that they were a lay group. In his summary of the evi­ dence for the Pharisees he admits that "any historical reconstruc­ tion must remain incomplete and uncomfortably hypothetical" (p. 277). In this context he inserts a brief treatment of the common claim that the Dead Sea Scrolls use as a code name for Pharisees — "seekers after smooth things" — and that one of the scrolls, the Nahum Pesher, identifies the 800 opponents whom Alexander Jannaeus (103-76 BCE) crucified as Pharisees through use of this epithet. He argues that Josephus does not in fact call Jannaeus's victims Pharisees and questions whether the Qumran texts allude to the Pharisees in this way (pp. 278-80). He surveys the roles of Pharisees and terms used for them, while also dealing with the claim in the gospels that they were active in Galilee (it is uncer­ tain). The last chapter centers on the Sadducees and the little that the sources divulge about them and their history. It comes as no surprise that Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees was often reviewed in the few years after it was published and that the reviews were appreciative. No less an authority than Jacob Neusner, with whose understanding of the Pharisees Saldarini in part disagreed, wrote: "He has given us the single most reliable and judicious account of the problem of the several named social groups (whether sects, professions, classes, we hardly know), and this book is now the starting point for all future study, taking over the entire results of American work on the subject from Louis

Foreword

xvii

Ginzberg's and Louis Finkelstein's important writing in the 1920's and 1930's down to the most recent times" (Journal of the Ameri­ can Oriental Society 111 [1991] 133). Neusner also said that his "cautious, informed, and absolutely honest account of his method, sources, and results yield what will stand for a long time as the de­ finitive statement on a long-debated and much-vexed subject" and calls it "the single most important study of the Pharisees, Saddu­ cees, and scribes now in print" (p. 134). Although they made many positive comments, not all reviewers were as laudatory as Neusner. So, for example, Peter J. Tomson was surprised that Saldarini paid so little attention to the Essenes, the third entity alongside the Pharisees and Sadducees in Josephus's accounts, and found problems with his use of rabbinic sources (Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift 45 [1991] 255). Bruce Chilton charged that "all the [sociological] terms of refer­ ence are taken from studies of other cultures, ancient and modern. No attempt is made to evolve sociologies of the particular societies at issue on the basis of anything approaching primary evidence" (Interpretation 44 [1990] 310-11). Sean Freyne, while applauding the work, thought that by profiling only the three groups of the title Saldarini failed to be consistent with his view of society as a com­ plicated web of relationships (Theology 94 [1991] 67-68). And Martin Goodman called into question the category of retainer, the applicability of which he thought Saldarini assumed rather than demonstrated. He added that "students will benefit much from Saldarini's analysis of scribes and Sadducees, but that they will look elsewhere when they seek enlightenment about the third and most controversial group in the title" (Journal of Jewish Studies 41 [1990] 267-68). It should also be noted that the book has been fa­ vorably received by advocates of the social scientific or cultural approach to the New Testament (as an example, see Dennis Duling's article, "'Egalitarian' Ideology, Leadership, and Factional Conflict within the Matthean Group," Biblical Theology Bulletin 21 [1997] 124-37). In the years since 1988 when Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees was published research regarding the subjects treated by Saldarini, especially about the Pharisees, has continued apace. Indeed, Saldarini himself has been one of the contributors (see, for exam­ ple, his articles "Pharisees" and "Scribes" in the Anchor Bible Dic­ tionary 5.289-303 and 5.1012-16). The Pharisees seem to be the

xviii

Foreword

leaders in attracting scholarly interest, however little we actually know about them. In the field there is widespread awareness that there are problems in understanding the Pharisees as the direct pre­ decessors of the rabbinic sages, although the Rabbis saw it that way. If rabbinic texts are dubious sources of reliable historical in­ formation for first-century phenomena, it greatly reduces the pool of evidence for reconstructing what the groups were like before the Romans destroyed the temple in 70 CE, with the resulting transfor­ mations in Jewish society. However, in contemporary scholarship some experts do believe that through an educated, judicious use of rabbinic texts one can derive valid information about the pre-70 groups; others remain more skeptical. Jacob Neusner had offered an extended study of this problem in his three-volume work The Rabbinic Traditions about the Phari­ sees Before 70 (Leiden: Brill, 1971). He came to rather (not com­ pletely) negative conclusions and emphasized the distinctive char­ acter and purpose(s) of each rabbinic text, with the aims of the compilers playing a large role in their contents. E. P. Sanders thought that the detailed work Neusner had done should be redone and finds more useful material in rabbinic literature than Neusner did. He has written, for example, that Neusner has become reluctant to attribute even the earliest stra­ tum of rabbinic literature to the Pharisees, but in many respects the old arguments for linking Pharisaism and rabbinism still hold. There are substantial continuities between the two, such as the emphasis on non-biblical traditions. It is also important that the rabbis of the late first century regarded themselves as heirs of the Pharisees. In studying Pharisaism, we should, wherever possible, correlate different sources and not rely on only one. For details, however, we must go to rabbinic literature, since Josephus and the New Testament provide very few. (Judaism: Practice and Belief: 63 BCE — 66 CE [London: SCM/Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1992] 413) Among the many studies of the Pharisees that have appeared in the last decade or so, a few should be mentioned here. Seth Schwartz, Josephus and Judaean Politics (Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 18; Leiden: Brill, 1990): Schwartz held that in the War Josephus supported the leading

Foreword

xix

priests but is more explicit about their role in the period leading up to the revolt of 66-70 in the Antiquities. In the later work he offers propaganda for a new group, not the Pharisees specifically but one looking more like the rabbis in the upper Jewish classes. In this way he was apparently offering support for the rabbis of Yavneh and soliciting Roman backing for them. Steve Mason, Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees: A Composi­ tion-Critical Study (Studia Post-biblica 39; Leiden: Brill, 1991): Josephus is consistently unfavorable in his evaluation of the Phari­ sees and was not himself a Pharisee. His views about them do not show a development from his earliest to his latest writings. Gunter Stemberger, Jewish Contemporaries of Jesus: Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995): Stemberger fo­ cuses on Josephus's three groups, examining the sources of infor­ mation about them, their teachings, and their history, and asks whether they continued to exist after Jerusalem was destroyed in 70. He voices some skepticism about sociological approaches and wonders how historically useful they are (see, for example, p. 106). Albert I. Baumgarten, The Flourishing of Jewish Sects in the Maccabean Era: An Interpretation (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 55; Leiden: Brill, 1997): He mentions the importance of rapid social change in the origin of religious move­ ments (pp. 29-30) and refers to Saldarini's book in this context, finding it inadequate in searching out the conditions in which the groups originated: His account also [like the one of G. Theissen, Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978)] concen­ trates on the first century CE and explicitly attempts to set Phar­ isees, Scribes and Sadducees within the context of first century CE Judaism in the Roman period (the era when these groups form part of the background to the gospels). Not surprisingly, his interest in the circumstances which brought these groups into existence is limited, and his comments restricted to a few remarks on the Hellenization of the Maccabees leading the Pharisees to seek 'a new communal commitment to a strict Jew­ ish way of life, based on adherence to the covenant.' (p. 29) In addition, Baumgarten questions whether "retainer class" is a proper label for the Pharisees (p. 51). He considers the Pharisees

xx

Foreword

and Sadducees to be reformist sects, while the Qumran group was an introversionist one; all arose as responses to the same set of di­ lemmas in the Maccabean age. Roland Deines, Die Pharisder: Ihr Verstdndnis im Spiegel der christlichen und judischen Forschung seit Wellhausen und Graetz (vol. 1; Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 101; Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1997): The book's 642 pages contain a detailed history of scholarship, with a focus on theologi­ cal views — both those attributed to the Pharisees in ancient sources and those assumed by modern scholars. Deines also sketches his own understanding of the Pharisees in which he ex­ presses the idea that one can obtain more information about them from rabbinic texts than scholars like Neusner think. For him they formed the bridge between pre- and post-70 Judaism and were an inclusive group that embodied a normative Judaism (not unlike what George Foot Moore had defended earlier in the twentieth century). Although they have received less attention than the Pharisees, the scribes have also been the subject of several studies. David Orton, The Understanding Scribe: Matthew and the Apocalyptic Ideal (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of the New Testament 25; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989): With understanding the concept of "scribe" in Matthew as his chief goal, Orton surveyed the evidence in the Hebrew Bible, secondtemple texts (including rabbinic literature), Ben Sira, apocalyptic works, and the Qumran texts. His survey yielded the result that scribes were regarded as having wisdom and insight (e.g., into mysteries, parables, etc.), authority in maintaining values, and righteous teaching and right interpretation of the law and prophets; they were also associated with prophecy and had a perception of being inspired. Matthew's contemporary scribes failed to live up to this standard, but he used the notion of the ideal scribe, one who embodied especially the traits of the apocalyptic notion of the scribe, for the disciple of Jesus. Christine Schams, Jewish Scribes in the Second Temple Period (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 291; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998): Schams provides a thorough survey of the evidence for scribes from the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman periods and notes both continuities and de­ velopments in their functions and status. She distinguishes scribes

Foreword

xxi

who worked as public servants and those who specialized in read­ ing and interpreting texts (a later development). The large and important question of the use of rabbinic texts for historically reliable information about groups in the first century CE and earlier has been cast in a new light since 1988 by the publi­ cation of several Qumran texts, especially the work called 4QMMT (the abbreviation comes from the Hebrew phrase mean­ ing "Some of the Works of the Torah"). As noted above, Saldarini, although he did consult the Qumran texts, made only limited use of them. His procedure is quite understandable, considering when he wrote; at that time the published texts offered little of obvious relevance to his subject. Since 1988, however, a large number of scrolls have appeared in official editions, and some of them open new perspectives on groups in the late second-temple period. If he were to revise his book today, Saldarini would certainly pay greater attention to the Dead Sea Scrolls. While there was once a large hiatus in our sources for the his­ tory of Jewish law between the Hebrew Bible and rabbinic litera­ ture, that gap has now been filled to a certain extent by publication of series of Hebrew texts rich in legal material and dating from the last centuries BCE. A new day in Qumran studies dawned when Yigael Yadin published the Temple Scroll in 1977 (English edition in 1983). That text, the longest one found to date at Qumran, ap­ parently was compiled in the second century BCE and may ante­ date the formation of the Qumran community. It showed clearly the legal interests of the group and the ways in which they com­ bined their legal teachings with those in the Mosaic Torah. But the situation was to become clearer when 4QMMT was published. In 1980 scholars were tipped off to the possibility that some very interesting material might be found in a text that for a time went under the name 4QMishnaic. Joseph Baumgarten, an expert on Jewish legal literature, had noted a brief excerpt from this text cited in Les 'petites grottes' de Qumran (Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 3; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962) 225, where the editor, J. T. Milik, was discussing the orthography and language of the Copper Scroll. One comparative text he adduced was 4QMishnaic, and from it Milik quoted the words "And concerning liquid streams: we are of the opinion that they are not pure For the liquid of streams and (that) of (the vessel) which receives them are alike, (being) a single liquid" (cited from E. Qimron and

xxii

Foreword

J. Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4 V Miqsat Ma'ase Ha-Torah [Discov­ eries in the Judaean Desert 10; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994] B 55-58, p. 53). Baumgarten knew of the controversy between Sad­ ducees and Pharisees regarding liquid streams recorded in the Mishnah (Yadayim 4.7), and he noted that the Qumran text is "an explicit affirmation of the Sadducean position" ("The PharisaicSadducean Controversies about Purity and the Qumran Texts," Journal of Jewish Studies 31 [1980] 164). The text itself, now called "Some of the Works [or Precepts] of the Torah," was first described at scholarly conferences in 1984 and was later to become the center of an international controversy when a preliminary form of it was published without the editor's permission. In the official edition which Qimron and Strugnell published in 1994, they identified the text, preserved in six copies, as a letter and suggested it might have been sent by the leader of the Qumran community, the Teacher of Righteousness, to the head of the Jerusalem establishment, the person who was to become the Wicked Priest, as the Qumran community called him. In it are some 22 legal positions adopted by the author and his community but rejected by the recipients of the letter. Those positions the re­ cipients are urged to accept for their own good and for that of Is­ rael. In other words, in this text we have two Jewish groups, how­ ever they may be identified, distinguishing themselves, not by theological beliefs, but by specific legal positions. At a later point one of the editors, John Strugnell, modified his position, claiming only that the text is a personal letter, probably a treatise, about tra­ ditional legal practice in the Zadokite tradition. It dates from the years 159-152 BCE and was sent from the Qumran group to the leader in Jerusalem. Several important inferences may be made from 4QMMT. Not only does the text illustrate the importance of legal issues in defin­ ing the stances of Jewish groups in the second century BCE; it also proves that some of the problems debated in rabbinic literature and identified as positions of certain second-temple parties were al­ ready discussed by their predecessors centuries before the rabbinic texts were compiled. Furthermore, the positions expressed as their own by the authors of 4QMMT, where they can be checked, coin­ cide with views that in rabbinic literature are attributed to the Sad­ ducees. The best-known example has to do with the disputed point about liquid streams quoted above. Sadducees held that a liquid

Foreword

xxiii

stream poured from a ritually clean container into one that was im­ pure transmitted the impurity to the pure one; the Pharisees dis­ agreed. 4QMMT expresses the Sadducean decision, not the more moderate Pharisaic one. 4QMMT, by proving that at least some questions debated in rabbinic times were disputed already in the second century BCE, shows that texts such as the Mishnah do indeed preserve material pertinent to second-temple groups. But it has done much more: it has also cast new light on the little known Sadducees insofar as their legal stances are concerned. The Sadducees have received less monograph attention in the last decade than the Pharisees and scribes have, with the last major work on them being the formida­ ble volume by Otto Schwankl, Die Sadduzderfrage (ML 12, 18-27 parr): Eine exegetisch-theologische Studie zur Auferstehungserwartung (Bonner Biblische Beitrage 66; Frankfurt: Athenaum, 1987). In a remarkable essay published first in Hebrew and then ap­ pended to DJD 10, J. Sussman, a distinguished talmudist, studied the legal material in 4QMMT, highlighting its place in the history of Jewish law and its significance for modern study of it. Sussman accepted the widely held thesis that the Qumran group was Essene but observed that the halakhah set forth in 4QMMT agrees with what rabbinic sources identified as the Sadducean stance. Al­ though the term Essene is not mentioned in rabbinic texts (the name Boethusians is used for them), Sussman maintained that these people and the Sadducees followed one halakhic way (a stringent one), whereas the Pharisees defended a more moderate one. After noting the changed historical circumstances that came about with the rise of the Hasmoneans, he writes: Different religious approaches and conflicting interpretations regarding the observance of the ancestral tradition in all its de­ tails, among other factors, encouraged controversies and led to the division and formation of different sects. It would appear that the basic split occurred between the stringent, inflexible, and uncompromising (Sadducean) approach, which was op­ posed by the flexible, evolving, and relatively lenient (Phari­ saic) approach, which answered the needs of the general public and sought to enable the people to share in the new spirit. In­ deed, when the leaders of the sects face off, polemicising di-

xxiv

Foreword

rectly with one another and raising 'some' of their differences — i.e., the principal ones — they discuss halakhic details, and not theological issues: it was over the halakha that they fought, and because of it they split. It is clear that the dispute had theo­ logical import and was laden with ethical and religious signifi­ cance, but the practical manifestation of this conflict was to be found in the observance of the halakha. (pp. 196-97) Those who followed Sadducean legal principles were not all the same. The priestly nobility were apparently not the only adherents of Sadducean halakha. The Sadducean halakha mentioned in rab­ binic literature was followed not only by the Sadducean aristo­ crats of the other sources, but also by popular classes and fanati­ cal religious sects, who even fought on its behalf. These sects waged a dual battle: a religious-p0//f/cWar 1.2.8 (67-69) and 1.4.1-8 (85-106). "Ant. 13.15.5-16.3(39*417).

90

Part II: The Literary

Sources

Pharisees. Alexander stresses to his wife the ability of the Pharisees to harm or help people by influencing public opinion, despite the fact that they sometimes act out of envy. He also reveals the Pharisees' political agenda, that is, their desire for power over the laws governing domestic Jewish life. Alexandra is to render them benevolent by conceding to them a certain amount of power. Later on he tells her to "Promise them also that you will not take any action, while you are on the throne, without their consent." Alexandra followed this advice and also let the Pharisees have control over Alexander's corpse and burial, as he advised. The Pharisees, in turn, forgot their anger and gave speeches praising Alexander as a great and just king and they moved the people to give him a splendid burial. Josephus neither praises nor blames the Pharisees for their actions. He sees them as one of the political interest groups competing for power and influence and he sees their influence and power over the ruling class as dependent on their status and influence among the people. He seems to approve of Alexander's advice to his wife to win over the people and end the civil disorder which marked the end of his reign. The Pharisees are seen here as a force for order and thus win Josephus' approval. Josephus shows no interest in the details of the Pharisaic program, nor their motives. He takes for granted their self-interested quest for power and cynical posthu­ mous praise of Alexander, but quickly criticizes them for causing disorder. Josephus begins the account of Alexandra's reign by noting that the people loved her because they thought that she had disapproved of Alexander's cruel crimes. Josephus himself expresses admiration for her in the War because she was not cruel like Alexander, was more in tune with the people and conducted herself in such a manner as to gain popular support. 28

29

2

*Ant. 13.15.5(404).

29

Though the Antiquities' account of the Pharisees* influence on the people is more extensive than that in the War, Josephus* viewpoint has not become more positive. Longer and more detailed accounts are common in the Antiquities, but the Pharisees* influence in society is presumed in both accounts and the Pharisees* ultimate influence on Alexandra is seen as negative in both. In fact, Alexandra herself is presented more negatively in the Antiquities than in the War for having succumbed to the Pharisees.

Part II: The Literary Sources

91

She kept the peace, ruled effectively and was pious. She studied the ancient customs of her country and expelled from govern­ ment men who offended against the holy laws. Lest she be pictured as an overly pious holy hermit, Josephus notes that Alexandra built up the army, conducted military campaigns and engaged effectively in foreign negotiations. Josephus accuses Alexandra of weakness in letting the Pharisees rule and the Jewish people of weakness in letting a woman rule them. Alexandra carried out her promise to give the Pharisees power by permitting the Pharisees to do as they liked in all matters and commanding the people to obey them. She also restored the Pharisaic regulations which had been abrogated by John Hyrcanus. Josephus comments: "There grew up beside her into her power Pharisees, a certain body (syntagma) of Jews with the reputation of being more pious than others and expounding the laws more accurately." Alexandra listened to them with too great deference because she was pious and they gradually took advantage of her simplicity (or sincerity ) "and became administrators (dioiketai) of every­ thing, to banish and recall whom they wished, to loose and to bind. In short, the advantages of royalty were theirs; the expenses and burdens were Alexandra's.^ In the Antiquities Josephus summarizes the Pharisees' power with an exaggeration: "While she had the title of queen, the Pharisees had the power," and then adds that they in no way differed from absolute rulers. The Pharisees had substantial direct bureaucratic power in domestic affairs, recalled exiles and freed prisoners, but did not have unlimited power because they could not punish on their own authority Alexander's old advisors and allies who had crucified the eight hundred. The Pharisees' powerful but limited role in society can be seen most clearly in their attempt to take vengeance on those who had been responsible for the eight hundred rebels crucified by Alexander Jannaeus. They assassinated several of Alexander's 30

31

2

33

34

*Ant. 13.16.2(408). 3l

haploteta.

*War 1.5.1-3(107-114). *Ant. 13.16.2(409). 34

War 1.4.6 (96-98); Ant. 13.16.2 (410415). The anti-Pharisaic passage in the War is

92

Part II: The Literary

Sources

old supporters and urged the queen to execute others. Alexander's retainers appealed to Queen Alexandra against her new powerful retainers and clients, the Pharisees, using her son Aristobolus as spokesman. Stressing their loyalty to the Hasmonean house and their reluctance to become mercenaries or advisors for another king in the area, they asked to be allowed to guard her fortresses and be safe in exile from the Pharisees. Josephus does not approve of any of the participants in this conflict because all parties contributed to instability. The partisans of Alexander had been responsible for unrest and had allowed Alexandra to take over; Alexandra had allowed the Pharisees to get too much control; the Pharisees were disrupting society. Alexandra's solution to the conflict between her old and new retainers and clients recognized the old guard's claim on her and kept them in reserve. "The queen, not knowing what to do consistent with her dignity, entrusted to them the guarding of the fortresses with the exception of Hyrcania, Alexandreion and Machaerus." Alexandra clearly trusted these out of favor retainers and felt an obligation to care for them, so she minimally satisfied the requirements of a patron to treat her clients fairly. She also kept the Pharisees from gaining total control over their enemies and her government. But this compromise caused her trouble near the end of her reign when the old guard threatened her rule and fought on the side of Aristobolus in his attempt to seize the throne by force. Josephus' ultimate judgment is that the Pharisees had promoted conflict within society and Alexandra had not resolved the conflicts or ruled with the long 35

36

37

38

commonly said to have come from Josephus's source, Nicolaus of Damascus, who was a member of Herod's court and wrote a history of his reign. But that Josephus would include this assessment of the Pharisees and otherwise pay little attention to them is consistent with his interest in the ruler and the top of the governing class and with his support of civil order. See Rajak, Josephus, 34. For an assessment of Josephus* use of Nicolaus, as well as the text of some passages explicitly attributed to him, see Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, Vol. 1, 227-260, esp. 229-230. 35

In Ant. 13.16.3 (417). See also 13.16.6 (430432) for a more extensive negative evaluation of Alexandria. 36

37

Ant. 13.16.5 3(417). tt

Lande, Clientism,* xxiii.

*Ant. 13.16.5(423-429).

Part II: The Literary Sources

93

term interests of her dynasty in mind because "she expressed the same opinions as did those who were hostile to her family." 39

SUMMARY During the reigns of John Hyrcanus, Alexander Jannaeus and Alexandra, Josephus portrays a struggle for power within the governing and retainer classes. The Pharisees appeared during the reign of Hyrcanus competing for power with other political interest groups. They had their own program for Jewish society, contained in a set of traditions and rules which Josephus does not describe. They gained and lost great influence and were still in existence during the reign of Alexander. Though they are not mentioned among the groups opposing Alexander, they are strongly in sympathy with those executed by him. Josephus sees the Pharisees as an organized group, which he calls a syntagma, something which is ordered, such as a military unit, a political constitution or a civil group recognized by a consti­ tution. Josephus (or his source Nicolaus before him) keeps the Pharisees at arms length and does not embrace them as authentic leaders or exemplars of Jewish life by saying that they were reputed to be more pious and accurate in interpreting the laws than others. During the time of unrest at the end of Alexander's reign the outgoing king himself proposed to his wife and successor, Alexandra, that she gather around herself a new group of supporters and retainers, the Pharisees. Both Alexander and Alexandra realized that their position as rulers was in jeopardy and they took steps to consolidate their power by making a coalition with the most influential group among the people, the Pharisees. The Pharisees entered into the coalition and stabilized 40

39

Ant. 13.16.6 (431). Josephus is probably alluding to the Pharisees, since he has previously shown that they were hostile to the Hasmoneans. 4°Many commentators identify the 800 opponents of Alexander who were executed as Pharisees, but Josephus does not. Since Jewish society contained numerous political and social groups, alliances and coalitions with complex relationships, scholars should hesitate to identify one group with another. Levine, "Political Conflict," 69, argues that Josephus does not identify the 800 as Pharisees in order not to show them as rebels. But, as will be seen at the end of ch. 6, their political involvement and resistance is clearly presented in Ant.

94

Part II: The Literary

Sources

the transition from Alexander to Alexandra by quieting the people. Alexandra gave the Pharisees what they wanted, legal support for their particular interpretation of Judaism and some direct power to run domestic affairs. The Pharisees used their power to attack their rivals, the old governing class. The soldiers, advisors and high bureaucrats under Alexander, now out of power, appealed to Alexandra for justice on the basis of their loyalty to her and Alexander and she met their demands. In the confusion which followed the death of Alexandra the Pharisees are not mentioned and it is likely that they lost influence and popularity with the people because of the way they had exercised power over them and thus lost political power to rival interest groups, coalitions and factions. Though both of Alexandra's sons, Aristobolus and Hyrcanus, had fol­ lowing^ among the governing class, the retainer class and possibly the lower classes, neither is said to have turned to the Pharisees for support. The rise and fall of the Pharisees fits the pattern found in many other countries and empires outlined in chapters two and three. In bureaucratic empires and states, such as the Jewish state, religious functionaries and groups tend to emerge as partially independent political power centers. Espe­ cially in times of turmoil and change such as the period after Alexander's death, they, as well as many individuals and groups, can be expected to compete for power. Sociologically, the Pharisees are part of Lenski's retainer class, in the service of the ruling class as bureaucrats, educators and officials. In a read­ justment of ruling power they could gain power in the bureau­ cracy and become part of the ruling class temporarily, as they did under Alexandra. In their relationship with Alexandra the Pharisees can best be seen as a religio-political interest group, a corporate, voluntary association "organized for the pursuit of one interest or of several interests in common." It probably recruited people along recognized principles and had common interests and rules governing the members' behavior. Alexandra and the Pharisees found it mutually beneficial to become allies and form a coalition. The alliance was not a permanent change in class and 41

4,

Boissevain, Friends of Friends, 171.

Part II: The Literary Sources

95

status, but a temporary position attained in society and based on the patronage of the ruler and the Pharisees' prestige attained through religious practice and knowledge. Thus, the Pharisees' position in society was part of a complex network of relation­ ships and depended heavily on circumstances. Josephus tells us little directly about the Pharisees' organi­ zation, stated goals, size or leadershp. He sees them as a vital social force which has its base in knowledge and observance of the ancestral laws of Judaism. They probably functioned as a social movement organization seeking to change society. Because of the Hellenization of the Hasmoneans and the governing class which had followed non-traditional laws in controlling society the Pharisees probably sought a new, com­ munal commitment to a strict Jewish way of life based on adherence to the covenant. They probably capitalized on popular sentiment for rededication to or reform of Judaism and created a formal or informal social movement. In such a time of change, with some of the governing class probably unobservant, groups such as the Pharisees could exert great influence with the support of the people. 42

The Herodian Period The Pharisees remained influential actors at the highest levels of society, both in Herod's court and in the Sanhedrin. Early in Herod's reign the Pharisees were favored by Herod as supporters and clients, but later they joined a faction opposed to Herod and suffered his wrath. The Pharisees, like all the upper classes, were controlled by Herod and failed to attain any real power while he lived, yet they did not withdraw, but remained active participants in political life. Reasons for their support of Herod are given by Josephus, but difficult to separate from Josephus' own views. Some Pharisees seem to have espoused a view of Israel's destiny 42

A social movement organization is "a complex, or formal, organization which identifies its goals with the preferences of a social movement or a counter movement and attempts to implement those goals.** See Henri Taifel, Differentiation between Social Groups: Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroups Relations (London/New York: Academic, 1978) 28-46 and McCarthy and Zald, "Resource Mobilization**, 1212-1219, esp. 1217-1219.

96

Part II: The Literary

Sources

which could include Herod as leader, at least early in his reign. SAMAIAS AND POLLION About twenty years after Alexandra's death, in 47-46 B. C. E., the political situation was confused, with Antipater and his sons, Herod and Phasael, governing, much to the consternation of the traditional Jerusalem leaders. In an attempt to rein in this new power, they summoned Herod to trial before the Sanhedrin on the charge that he acted illegally in executing some brigands without the verdict of the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem. The Sanhedrin's claim to power was opposed by the high priest Hyrcanus, who had been Herod's ally, the Roman governor in Syria who ordered Hyrcanus to acquit Herod and finally by Samaias, a prominent member of the Sanhedrin and a disciple of a Pharisee named Pollion. When Herod appeared with a strong bodyguard, he so awed the Sanhedrin that no one arose to accuse him. Samaias rebuked the members of the Sanhedrin for their cowardice in allowing Herod to dominate them and predicted that they would regret releasing Herod because he would one day punish all of them. Later when Herod and the Roman general Sossius besieged and captured Jerusalem from the partisans of Antigonus, Samaias advised the people of Jerusalem to allow Herod into Jerusalem because their sins made his victory inescapable. Samaias' prediction came true when Herod punished those who had opposed him and showed special favor to his supporters, among whom were Pollion the Pharisee and Samaias his disciple who had advised the people to admit him. 43

44

45

43

O n the social context of banditry and its connection with peasant revolt, see R. Horsley, "Josephus and the Bandits," JSJ10 (1979) 37-63. "Ant. 14.9.3-5 (163-184); Samaias is identified as a disciple of Pollion in Ant. 15.1.1 (3) and there Pollion is said to have been the one to have rebuked the Sanhedrin, contrary to Ant. 14.9.4 (172). On attempts to link these figures with the rabbinic figures Shamaiah and Abtalyon, see bibliography in the Loeb edition, vol. 14, Appendix K. Also A. Guttmann, Rabbinic Judaism in the Making (Detroit: Wayne State, 1970) p. 53; S. Zeitlin in The Rise and Fall of the Jewish State (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1964). Vol. 2, p. 104 and L. Feldman, "The Identity of Pollio, the Pharisee, in Josephus," JQR 49 (1958) 53-62. 45

Ant. end of Book 14 and beginning of Book 15.

Part II: The Literary Sources

97

Since Samaias" rebuke of the Sanhedrin agrees with Josephus' own thought very closely, it is likely that his speech does not represent Pharisaic teaching directly. Josephus did not like Herod, but liked even less Jewish leaders who were weak and allowed disorder in the state and its institutions. Thus in practice, Josephus favored Herod because he was the best leader available. In Josephus' view weakness always leads to disaster and in this case weakness ended any vestige of Hasmonean rule and led to Herod's ascendancy. As a spokesman for Josephus' views, Samaias is presented very positively. He is said to be an upright man (dikaios) who was superior to fear and able to make a true prediction of the future (a sure sign of God's favor in Josephus' eyes). Josephus through Samaias interprets the rise of Herod to mean that God was punishing the Hasmoneans and those in Jerusalem who supported them. Samaias, as a member of the Sanhedrin, was a member of the governing class and perhaps his teacher Pollion was also. It is not surprising that a Pharisee or perhaps a number of Pharisees should be counted among the group of elders and leaders who make up the Sanhedrin. Pharisees had been both influential and powerful in the government and some continued to parti­ cipate in political activity. But, Samaias and Pollion were in a weak position because Samaias' rebuke to the Sanhedrin in 47-46 and their advice to admit Herod into Jerusalem in 37 were ignored. They still attempted to influence the people, as they did in the days of John Hyrcanus and Alexander Jannaeus, but they lacked noteworthy success. However, by supporting Herod at crucial points in his quest for power, they attained favor as clients of Herod. 46

47

"Josephus did the same with Vespasian (War 3, 8, 6 [387-408]). 47

The Sanhedrin in Jerusalem was the supreme council, included the most powerful and influential citizens at any given time and thus probably had a shifting membership which reflected the power struggles and social currents of history. In order to reconcile seemingly conflicting statements in Josephus and rabbinic literature some scholars have espoused a theory of two Sanhedrins, one political and one religious. The inextricable union of political society and religion make this impossible. For a convenient summary of theories, see Hugo Mantel, *Sanhedrin, IDBS, 784-786. w

98

Part II: The Literary

Sources

THE PHARISEES UNDER HEROD Herod's continuing support for the Pharisees and his percep­ tion of them as his allies, or at least as not a threat, is clear later in the middle of his reign. About 20 B.C.E., he undertook a series of actions to suppress dissatisfaction with his rule. As part of this program he required the people to take an oath of allegiance to him and any who refused were gotten rid of with the exception of the Pharisees and Essenes. Herod tried to persuade Pollion the Pharisee, Samaias and their disciples to take the oath but they refused. Herod, however, did not punish them, but showed them respect because of Pollion. Josephus does not say why these groups refused to take an oath. The Essenes are consistently presented as an ascetic and atypical group and they might be expected to have special scruples. The Pharisees had their own interpretations of Jewish law but nothing explicit is said in Josephus about restrictions on taking oaths. The Pharisees' active role in Jewish political and legal life would suggest that they had no problem with oaths. Josephus' account of Pollion and Samaias' prediction concerning Herod, their acquiescence to his rule, and their theological explanation for Herod's ascendency suggest that they did not oppose him, perhaps because he was the best alternative available in Palestinian society at the time. The Pharisees seem to be uneasy allies of Herod; they may have kept their distance from Herod either because they feared his autocratic power or disagreed too fundamentally with his policies. The Pharisees remained an active political force which Herod recognized, sought to keep benevolent and treated with great seriousness when they were a threat, as will be seen in the next incident involving the Pharisees. 48

49

CONFLICT WITH HEROD Domestic conflicts and palace intrigues over succession domi­ nated the final part of Herod's reign, according to Josephus. The Pharisees participated in one factional intrigue as a minor *Ant. 15.10.4(368-372). 49

sundiatribonton

autois, literally, those spending time with them.

Part II: The Literary Sources

99

political force, with catastrophic results for themselves. Herod's brother Pheroras, the tetrarch of Perea, along with Pheroras' wife, mother and sister and Antipater's mother conspired to have Antipater, Herod's son, succeed him. Herod's sister, Sa­ lome, reported on their plots to her brother, but Herod, who was still influenced by the conspirators, took a long time to act against them. During this time of scheming Josephus recounts disapprovingly the Pharisees' long relationship with Pheroras' wife and their role in the plots. "There was also a group of Jews priding itself on its adherence to ancestral custom and claiming to observe the laws of which the Diety approves, and by these men, called Pharisees, the women (of the court) were ruled.*** The Pharisees are here pictured as influencing prominent women just as they had Alexandra in the previous generation. Josephus keeps his distance from the Pharisees by reporting but not affirming their reputation for observance and their claim to know the laws, just as he did earlier. For Josephus, they are just one more group of retainers surrounding Herod and scheming for power. "These men were able to help the king greatly because of their foresight [prediction], yet they were obviously intent upon combating and injuring him." As an instance of the Pharisees' ill will toward Herod, Josephus cites the refusal of six thousand to take an oath of loyalty to Caesar and the king's government. Such an act weakened the government and 50

52

53

*> War 1.29.2 (567-571); Ant. 17.2.4-3.3 (32-60). 51

Ant 17.2.4 (41). The Greek word translated here as "group" is morion which means literally a "part" and is used idiomatically of groups. It is used of the Pharisees here only. tt

*Ant. 17.2.4 (41). A.I. Baumgarten, The Name of the Pharisees," JBL 102 (1983) 414-416, citing the common view, holds that this hostile passage derives from Nicolaus of Damascus who was pro-Herodian. He and others fail to note that Josephus is completely consistent in all his works in condemning troublemakers. 53

It is likely that this refusal to take an oath is not the same as the refusal by Pollion, Samaias and their students recorded in Ant. 15.10.4 (368-371). 1. In Book 15 Herod excused Pollion and his students because he considered him an ally and did not impose a fine. 2 In book 15 the group is Pollion and his disciples. Here it is six thousand Pharisees, who seem to be an organized group. 3. In book 15 only an oath to Herod is mentioned. Here it is an oath to Caesar and Herod. 4. Here Herod protests that Pheroras' wife has opposed him by a series of acts including the paying of the Pharisees' fine. The context is not the first refusal to take an oath about 20 B.C.E. but the intrigues near the end of Herod's life in 7-4 B.C.E. See G. Alon, T h e Attitude of the Pharisees to the Roman Government and the House of Herod," Scripta Hierosolymitana 7 (1961) 53-78 and E. Schurer, G. Vermes and F. Millar, History, Vol. 1,314, n. 94. D. Schwartz,

100

Part II: The Literary

Sources

promoted disorder, a result which Josephus constantly de­ plores. If the number of members of the Pharisees, six thousand, is accurate, it suggests that the Pharisees were an organized group or movement with clear enough boundaries to be identified. The Pharisees' refusal of the loyalty oath and their coalition with Pheroras' camp are linked because Herod punished the Pharisees with a fine which was paid by Pheroras' wife. She acted as their patron and they in return shifted their allegiance from Herod and served as her clients: "In return for her friend­ liness they foretold—for they were believed to have foreknow­ ledge of things through God's appearances to them—that by God's decree Herod's throne would be taken from him, both from himself and his descendants, and the royal power would fall to her and Pheroras and to any children that they might have." Josephus records the Pharisees' reputation for predic­ tion, a gift which would indicate divine favor, but the way he speaks of it, the cynical motive they have for making the prediction and the fact that the prediction did not come true all show that in Josephus' view the Pharisees are political oppor­ tunists manipulating their patron. Josephus also reports that the Pharisees predicted that another powerful court official, Bagoas, a eunuch would come to power and even have children. The Pharisees are in the thick of the political battles and they have considerable influence on the opponents of Herod, an influence which Josephus considers harmful. Herod responded to this hostile coalition by executing Bagoas, Karos, those of Herod's household who approved of what the 54

55

56

57

"Josephus," 160 defends a single conflict over oath taking told in divergent accounts by Nicolaus of Damascus and Josephus. 54

Josephus does not say why the Pharisees refused to take the oath. An oath to Caesar might be religiously repulsive to them, though not necessarily. Politically they are portrayed as opponents of Herod and so most probably of the Roman empire which created him as king. Refusal to take the oath certainly functioned as and probably was meant as a political protest and attack. *Ant. 17.2.4(42-45). *Ant. 17.2.4 (43). 57

Richard A. Horsley, "Popular Messianic Movements Around the Time of Jesus," CBQ 46 (1984) 483, notes that the acceptance of the Pharisees' predictions suggests an eagerness for an anointed king in response to Herodian repression.

Part II: The Literary Sources

101

Pharisees said and those Pharisees most responsible for cor­ rupting his people (that is, turning them against him). Then, he put Pheroras' wife on trial for her plotting and made a number of accusations against her, for example, that she helped the Pharisees evade the fine imposed on them by paying it for them. The result of his charges was to decrease the power of Pheroras' faction and consequently of the Pharisees. 58

The First Century The Pharisees are mentioned several times in Josephus' account of the first century. The final reference to the notables of the Pharisees in the War occurs in the dispute over whether to cease offering the daily sacrifices sent by the Emperor to be offered for his welfare and that of the nation. Eleazar, son of the high priest Ananias and captain of the Temple, convinced the Temple priests not to accept sacrifices from foreigners. The chief priests and notables (gnorimoi) tried to keep the priests from rejecting the Emperor's sacrifices because this was an act of war. Then the principal citizens (dunatoi) assembled with the chief priests and the notables of the Pharisees to deliberate concerning the problem. This group decided to address the people in order to change the minds of the revolutionaries, a tactic which failed. In the course of the assembly the leaders produced priestly experts on the traditions who testified that all their ancestors had accepted sacrifices from aliens. Because the leaders had lost authority and influence in the chaos of the civil 59

58

One further event during Herod's life deserves mention, the tearing down of the golden eagle over the Temple gate by the disciples of Judas and Matthias (Ant. 17.6.1-4 [14&-167J War 1.33.2-4 (648-655). Many commentators treat these teachers and disciples as Pharisees. However, they are not identified as such. It is true that Pollion the Pharisee has disciples and John Hyrcanus was said to be a disciple of the Pharisees. But teachers with circles of disciples seem to have been common and there is no reason to treat this group as Pharisees. The two teachers exhort their students to zealous action and to martyrdom for the law. The Pharisees in this part of the Antiquities are presented more as political operators entering into sophisticated coalitions to gain power rather than nationalistic and religious zealots inciting revolution. 59

War 2.17.2-4 (409-417). Philo, Leg. ad Gaium, 157, 317, also gives information on these sacrifices.

102

Part II: The Literary

Sources

war, their attempt to persuade the people failed and war with Rome ensued. Josephus includes in the governing class the chief priests, the principal citizens and the notables of the Pharisees and he makes a clear distinction between these legitimate leaders and the people, of whom some were revolutionaries. The notables among the Pharisees were consulted but the basis for their status is not clear. They may have come from hereditary families which had aristocratic position in the city or they may have been powerful by virtue of their leadership of the Pharisees. In addition, we do not know whether the Pharisees as a group had a position in the dispute over whether to revolt against Rome. Earlier they were united in their opposition to Alexander and Herod, but in this they were at one with much of Palestinian society. Here most of the people of Jerusalem seem to have been for revolt but it is probable that the Pharisees, through their leaders, were allied with the governing class.

The Pharisees in the "Ufe" Josephus mentions the Pharisees on the eve of the revolt against Rome. Upon his return from an embassy to Rome he had sought asylum in the Temple from the brigands controlling Jerusalem. After their leader Menahem was killed, Josephus says that he again "consorted with the chief priests and the leading Pharisees.** According to Josephus he and these leaders feared the people and so pretended to agree with their revolu­ tionary ideas, all the while trying to stall them and hoping for the arrival of Roman troops. Josephus is himself a priest with links to the high priestly family and the Hasmoneans, so his presence among the leaders is reasonable. Since he has claimed to be a Pharisee as well as a priest, he may be presenting himself as linked with the leaders of his two groups. Nevertheless, here as in the War the leading Pharisees are part of the governing 60

1

62

*Ufe 20-23 (5). "The notables of the Pharisees are mentioned along with the chief priests in the War also (217.2-4 [409417]). "Life 1-6(1).

Part II: The Literary Sources

103

class and their membership in the Pharisees is noteworthy. Thus the Pharisees must have been a social and political group which was important, influential and powerful enough to be heard through its leaders. Later in the Life, during Josephus* tenure as commander in Galilee, he is opposed by Simon ben Gamaliel. John of Gischala (in upper Galilee), who was a rival of Josephus, sought to have Josephus removed and himself appointed instead. He sent his brothers to Jerusalem to ask his old and intimate friend, Simon ben Gamaliel, to convince the assembly to make this change. "This Simon was a native of Jerusalem, of a very illustrious family, and of the school of the Pharisees, who have the repu­ tation of being unrivalled experts in their country's laws (nomima). A man highly gifted with intelligence and judgment, he could by sheer genius retrieve an unfortunate situation in affairs of state." Simon urged "the high priest, Ananus and Jesus, son of Gamalas, and some others of their party" to remove Josephus. Ananus reminded them of the good reputation Josephus had with many of the chief priests and leaders of the people and advised against trumping up charges. Simon then instructed John's brother to bribe Ananus and in this way succeeded in getting Ananus and his party to agree to remove Josephus without the knowledge of others in the city. The governing class in Jerusalem was composed of many groups, with the high priests and their party at the center. Simon has more power and influence than John of Gischala or Josephus because of several factors, including his family, his ability and most probably his connection with the Pharisees. Simon is presented as a political operative within the governing class who helps an ally achieve his purpose against substantial opposition. Josephus belongs to the same circles and has his own supporters, but, absent in Galilee, he lost the battle for continued support and was slated for removal. The delegation sent to remove Josephus reveals more of the political class structure in Jerusalem and the status of the Pharisees. The delegation was made up of four equally edu63

64

"Ufe 189-198 (38-39) "life 196-198 (39).

104

Part II: The Literary

Sources

cated men from different classes of society. Two Pharisees were from the lower rank of society, another Pharisee was a priest and a third person, the youngest, was from the high priestly family. The instructions which the delegation received on setting out for Galilee are instructive. If the people of Galilee resist their removing of Josephus, they are to ascertain the basis for Josephus' hold over the people and refute it. Three possible warrants for Josephus' authority are given: being a native of Jerusalem, knowledge of ancestral laws and priesthood and obviously the delegation is Josephus' equal on all points. The three Pharisees in the group are from Jerusalem and knowledgable in the laws; one of them is a priest. The three bases for one's acceptance as a leader are consistent with what Josephus had shown of Jewish history. In the absence of a king, the priests and especially the chief priest and high priestly families held the center of power. A prerequisite for rule and an entree into the ruling classes is knowledge of the ancestral laws and customs of Judaism. Especially since the Maccabean wars, when the Jewish way of life had been threatened, fidelity to the laws had been a distinguishing mark of Jewish society. Those who were known for their knowledge and observance of the laws, such as the Pharisees, achieved influence and often power among the people. By contrast, those who did not observe the Jewish way of life, like Herod, were despised and if possible rejected. Finally, being a native of Jerusalem implies that the people recognized Jerusalem as their center and as the center of Jewish government; those who lived in Jerusalem and who were educated were considered to be the ruling class, even by Galileans who lived in another region and were directly controlled by different Jewish authorities. In this case, however, they failed. It may be that the Galileans perceived Josephus and the work he had done in 65

66

65

Josephus calls the two Pharisees demotikoi, that is, commoners, the people, citizens without rank. "The authorities in Jerusalem did not have direct control over Galilee. As usual the local leaders were the "notables," that is, the prominent and wealthy citizens. For the notables of Galilee, see War 2.12.3 (233) and for the leading (dunatoi) Samaritans, see War 2.12.5 (239). For a convenient summary of the regional difference within Galilee and between Galilee and other parts of Palestine, see Eric M. Myers and James F. Strange, Archaeology, the Rabbis and Early Christianity (Nashville: Abingdon, 1981), ch. 2.

Part II: The Literary Sources

105

Galilee as closer to their interests than the delegation and its policy sent from Jerusalem. 67

The Sadducees in the "Antiquities"and

"Life"

Jonathan the Sadducee, who brought the Sadducees to power under John Hyrcanus, has already been treated. The next Sadducee appears in Josephus during the war against Rome when Ananus the high priest is identified as a Sadducee and like the Sadducees under John Hyrcanus, is singled out for his rigor in rendering legal judgment. Ananus was appointed by King Agrippa during the interim between the death of the procurator Festus and the arrival of his replacement, Albinus. Because he had James the brother of Jesus and some others executed, some who thought that he had acted illegally or unfairly protested and he was removed after three months. Josephus, as usual, does not approve of anyone who causes unrest, including the Sad­ ducee Ananus in this case. Later in the War Ananus as senior of the chief priests is praised for resisting the Zealots and putting the public welfare above is own. Later still, in the Life Josephus claims he was bribed to give his support to those opposing Josephus. Josephus is neither for nor against the Sadducees, Ananus, James or the early Christians. He supports order and praises anyone who resists the revolutionaries. 68

69

70

71

67

O n the whole problem of the life and of this episode, see Cohen, Josephus, esp 223-227. 3-67; voluntary 59-61, 63-67, 94-95, 281; involun­ tary 63-64 haburot 216-20 hairesis 108-20, 123-27, 185 Herod 95-101,107-08,128-30,133,177 Herod Antipas 268, 293-94, 296 Herodians 147, 149, 156-57, 170, 177, 294 Hillel 204-07 honor (and shame) 27, 54-56, 151 Houses of Hillel and Shammai 206 immortality see life-after-death influence 31-34, 87-90,93-94, 97, 106, 114,122,132-34,139, 143, 150-51, 155-57, 162, 172, 178, 188, 190, 196-97,204,210-11,229,252,27476, 283-84 315

316

Index

James, brother of Jesus 105 Jerusalem 14749,156-57,171-72,175, 188-98,211,256,266,268,291,296 Jesus passim, esp. 144-198 John, gospel of 187-98; viewpoint 195-96 John of Gischala 103-05 John Hyrcanus 85-89, 93, 116, 130, 305 Josephus passim, esp. 79-133; life of 102-05, 117-19; viewpoint 81-85, 90-93, 105-06, 111, 114-15, 119, 128-32, 173,188,261-66, 292 Judas of Galilee/ Gamala 108 law, Jewish 87,91, 104, 110-114, 11621, 127, 130, 135-37, 149-50, 155, 163,165,172,183-85,192,199-237, 245, 253-4,268-72, 303-04 lawyers 176, 182-84 leaders village 52, 151, 175, 177-81, 266-67; low level 188-98, 274; Jerusalem 101-04,161-62,302-03,; Jewish 131-32, 154-55, 188-95 life-after-death 14, 109-110, 112-13, 121, 175, 182, 228-29, 299, 301, 304-07 Luke, gospel of 174-84, 296 Matthew, gospel of 157-73; viewpoint 158, 164, 172-73 Mark, gospel of 145-57; passim 15773; 292-93 Mishnah 201-02, 212-16 movements, social 4, 66,95, 281-82 Nehemiah 24546 networks 53-54, 282-84 Nicolaus of Damascus 83, 129-30 oath of allegiance 98-100 party 20-23 patriarchate, rabbinic 204-09 patron-client relations 56-59, 87-88, 92, 120, 133, 140, 156, 176, 284 Paul 134-43, 185-86,268, 292-93 peasants 36-37,43,4647,120,176,281 pesharim 278-80 Pharisees passim, esp. 79-237, 277297; name 220-25 Pheroras (and wife) 99-101 Political interest groups 64-65, 89-90, 93-94, 106, 120, 132, 149-50, 167, 211,214, 281,287-88 Pollion 96-98 power 20, 34, 89-91, 93-94, 97, 106, 119, 122, 143, 150-51, 153, 155-57,

162, 172, 178, 188, 190, 204, 208, 210-11,229, 274-76,293-95 prestige 23-27, 29 priests 3-5, 101-04, 244-46; high/chief p 147,149,154-56,160-62,170-71, 191-93, 250, 294,298-99, 302-03 purity 138, 149-50, 165-66, 168, 176, 212-20,224-25, 232,270-71,290 Qumran 278-80 rabbinic literature 199-237, 301-02, 305-07; method in study of 199203,229-31 religion in antiquity 5-6,16-17 resurrection see life-after-death retainers 4-5, 37-42, 4 6 4 8 , 87-88, 9294,99, 106, 114, 120, 139-42, 15557,161-62,172,197,252,256,264, 266, 281, 284, 295-96 sabbath observance 212-20, 233 Saddok the Pharisee 108 Saddok the Sadducee 306 Sadducees passim, esp. 87-88, 105-23, 154,166-67,176,187,225-28,23134, 236-37, 298-308 Samaias 96-98 Sanhedrin 96-97, 184-87, 193-94, 301 school 123-27, 129, 288-89 scribes passim, esp. 146-48, 151-53, 159-66,176,181-83,186,188,24176; term 241-42,265-66; history of 242-66; Biblical interpretation by 24749; Temple s. 245-50; Christian s. 267 sect 5, 70-73, 123-27, 209, 214, 285-87 Shammai 204-07 Simon ben Gamaliel 103-05, 130 sociology passim; use of 4,12-21,277; theory of and categories of 35-75 safer term 24142; in rabbinic literature 268-72 status, social 4,6,21-31,51-52,153-55, 159, 162, 171-73,180, 194,183 stratification 22-23, 25-28 synagogue 52-53,192-195,272 Syria 137-38, 143,291-92 table fellowship 214-20 Tarsus 137-39,143,293 teachers 176, 190, 193 tithing 212-20 village society 51-59, 144, 176, 266-67 war with Rome 101-05 wealth 23-31, 106, 140,172, 175, 178, 208 wisdom tradition 254-61

Author Index

Achtemeier, Paul 288 Alfoldy, Geza 28-29 Alon, Gedaliahu 99 Attridge, Harry 81,109,118-19,130 Avery-Peck, Alan 270 Bammel, E. 270 Banton, Michael 64 Baroja, Julio C. 55 Baumbach, G. 105,298 Baumgarten, A.I. 99,105,127,220-21 Bennett, W.J. 149 Betz, O. 265 Bickerman, Elias 59, 249-50,302,306 Blau, Peter 63 Blenkinsopp, Joseph 85, 121 Boardman, J. 302 Boissevain, Jeremy 53-54,64-66,94 Bourdieu, Pierre 56 Bowker, J. 287 Buchler, Adolf 25,294 Bultmann, Rudolf 145,291 Campbell, J.K. 55 Carmichael, C. 247 Carney, Thomas 36-37,47-48 Chiat, Marilyn J. 53 Cohen, Shaye J . D . 7-9,82-83,86,105, 118, 130-31,216,229,295 Collins, John J. 259 Cook, Michael 146, 148, 157 Crenshaw, J.C. 244 Cross, Frank M. 246,279 Culpepper, R. Alan 125, 189-90,195 Dalton, W.J. 135 Da vies, Philip 253 Davies, W.D. 158 Davis, J. 13, 55 Davis, Moshe 68 Demsky, A. 269 DeVaux, Roland 247

Dewey, Joanna 150 Dexinger, F. 259 Dimat, Devorah 278-79 Dodd, C H . 188-89, 195-96 Dombrowski, Bruno W. 69 Douglas, Mary 150,215,290 Durkheim, Emile 17 Eilberg-Schwartz, Howard 233 Eisenstadt, S.N. 6-7,21-22, 35, 39-40, 47, 57,60-63 Eister, Alan W. 70 Ellenson, D. 10 Elliott, John H. 16 Eppstein, V. 298 Epstein, J.N. 204, 269 Feldman, Louis 7,81,96 Finkelstein, Louis 43,222, 232, 306 Finley, Moses 27-28, 36,60, 67-68 Fischel, Henry 68 Fishbane, Michael 247-249 Fitzmyer, Joseph A. 178,181,183,279 Fraade, S. 223 Freyne, Sean 218,267,293-95 Gager, John 10 Galling, K. 245-46 Garland, D.E. 158, 165 Garnsey, Peter 43 Geller, M.J. 86 Geliner, Ernst 13 Gilat, Y. 269 Gilbert, M. 256 Goldin, Judah 305 Goldstein, Jonathan 251-52 Goodblatt, David 209 Goodman, Michael 209,295 Gould, Julius 27 Gouldner, Alvin W. 19,31 Green, William S. 69 Groh, D. 175 317

318

Index

Gutmann, Joseph 53 Guttmann, Alexander 96, 218, 221, 269 Hadas, Moses 260 Hanson, John S. 10 Haspecker, Josef 257 Hellholm, David 15 Hekman, Susan 19 Hempel, Carl G. 19 Hengel, Martin 59, 68, 146, 252, 257, 267, 302 Herford, R. Travers 199 Hock, Ronald 13940 Hollander, Paul W. 53 Holmberg, Bengt 143 Holy, Ladislav54, 63, 281 Horgan, Maurya 278-79 Horsley, Richard A. 10, 19, 44, 96, 100, 120, 192, 302 Hultgren, Arland J. 142 Hummel, R. 158, 267 Isaac, E. 258 Jewett, R. 175 Johnson, B. 70 Johnson, Luke 135, 175-76, 178, 180 Jouon, P. 149 Kautsky, John H. 21,23-24,35-39,43, 47 Kee, Howard C. 10 Kippenburg, Hans G. 10 Klein, Ralph W. 246 Klijn, A.F.F. 147 Koester, Helmut 134-35 Kolb, William 27 Kovacs, Brian 244 Kraeling, Carl 242 Kraft, Robert A. 7, 244 Kuper, Adam and Jessica 54 Lande, Carl H. 57-58,64-65,92 Laqueur, R. 82, 118, 128 Lauterbach, Jacob 199, 269,284 Leinhardt, Samuel 53 LeMaire, Andre 244, 247 LeMoyne, J. 105,123,226-28,232-33, 273, 298-99, 302, 304-05, 307 Lenski, Gerhard 4, 21-25, 31, 3 5 4 5 , 149 Leon, H.J. 272-73 Levine, Lee I. 86, 88,93, 285,298 Lieberman, Saul 149, 224 Lightstone, Jack 203, 231 Littlejohn, James 24 Luckmann, Thomas 15

Mack, Burton 255 Macmullen, Ramsey 28, 36,67-68 Maier, G. 265 Malbon, Elizabeth Struthers 144 Malherbe, Abraham 68 Malina, Bruce 13, 16, 56, 159, 162, 169, 191 Malinowski, B. 17 Mannheim, Karl 15 Mantel, Hugo 69,97, 126 Marbock, Johann 256 Mark us, Ralph 81, 250 Marrou, Henri 123 Martin, Malachi 247 Martyn, J. Louis 192, 196 Maryanski, Alexandra 19 McCarthy, John D. 66,95, 282 Meeks, Wayne 16, 29,70, 126, 140 Meier, John 164 Meyers, Eric M. 104 Meyers, J.M. 244,246 Milik, J.T. 258 Millar, Fergus 87,99,294 Moehring, Horst 82 Moore, George Foot 109, 199 Morgan, Donn 247 Moxnes, Halvor 176 Neusner, Jacob 9-10,69, 128, 131-32, 150,199-202,2044)8,212-18,220, 229,268, 285-86 Neyrey, Jerome 138,150 Nickelsburg, George W.E. 7, 15, 244, 259, 304 North, Robert 246 Olivier, J.P.J. 242 Pancaro, S. 190 Parker, P. 183 Parsons, Talcott 17, 30-33, 117 Peli, Pinchas H. 219 Peristiany, J.G. 55-56 Petersen, Norman R. 143 Pfuhl, E. 65,70 Pitt-Rivers, Julian 55 Pleket, H.W. 43 Poland, Franz 67-68,261 Porton, Gary G. 7, 216, 233, 244,298 Pritchard, James 254 Purcell, Nicolas 302 Radcliffe- Brown, A.R. 17 Rajak, Tessa 84,92, 118-19 Rasp, H. 118, 128,130 Rivkin, Ellis 9-10,68,202-03,209,226, 228-34, 284, 287

Index

Rohrbaugh, Richard 29-30,41 Roniger, Louis 57 Rowley, H.H. 149 Safrai, S. 8, 252 Ste. Croix, G.E.M. de 28 Saldarini, Anthony J. 7,42, 205, 288, 305 Sailer, Richard 57, 194 Sanders, E.R 7 Sanders, Jack T. 175-77, 183 Sanders, James A. 256-57 Sandmel, Samuel 149 Sarason, Richard 217 Sayler, G. 261 Schaeder, H.H. 245 SchaTer, Peter 303 Schiffer, Ira 69 Schmidt, Steffan W. 57 Schnackenburg, Rudolf 188-9 Schoedel, William 123 Schurer, Emil 87,99, 294 Schutz, Alfred 15 Schwartz, Daniel R. 83, 86, 115, 13031, 209, 268 Schwartz, Hillel 71 Senior, Donald 160 Sheppard, Gerald T. 244 Shils, E. 30 Simon, Marcel 123-24 Sjoberg, Gideon 25, 36,44,46 Smith, Jonathan 204 Smith, Morton 68,109,125, 128,145, 285, 291 Spiro, Solomon J. 218 Stadelmann, H. 256-57, 266 Steeman, Theodore M. 71 Stern, Menahem 83,92 Stone, Michael 81, 278

319

Stowers, Stanley 15-16, 19, 125-26 Strack, H. 204 Strange, James F. 104 Sweetser, D A . 27 Taifel, Henri 63, 95, 281 Talmon, S. 245-46 Tcherikover, Victor 251 Thackeray, H. St. J. 81 Theissen, Gerd 10, 140 Toch, Hans 66 Tod, Marcus N. 67 Turner, John C. 63 Turner, Jonathan 18-19, 22, 25-27 Urbach, E.E. 43, 224, 269 VanderKam, James 258 van Tilborg, Sjef 158, 160, 166, 267 Vermes, Geza 8, 87,99, 278, 294-95 von Rad, Gerhard 247 von Wahlde, Urban C. 188 Walker, R. 158 Waterbury, John 13 Weber, Max 17, 19-23, 28,31 Weinfeld, M. 247 Weiss Halivni, David 212, 269, 272 Welborn, L.L. 66 White, Leland J. 168 Whybray, R.N. 244 Wiebe, Donald 17 Wikgren, A. 81 Wilken, Robert 67, 123 Williams, Ronald J. 242-43 Willis, J.T. 244 Wilson, Bryan 71-72, 124,215,286-87 Wolf, C. 283 Wuellner, Wilhelm 44 Yadin, Y. 279 Zald, Mayer N. 66,95, 282 Zeitlin, Solomon 96 Ziesler, J.A. 175

Index of Ancient Sources BIBLE Leviticus 21:14

87

Judges 5:14

243

1 Samuel 14:31-35

262

243

Nehemiah 8-9 12:12-13

245 246

Nahum

2 Samuel 12:24-25 24:1

244 262

1 Kings 12:8

244

2 Kings 10:6 22

Jeremiah 36:10

244 243

3:8

279

Esther 6:1 9:3 Daniel 1-6 11:32

254 279

Ezra 7 7:6 7:21-22 7:24 8

245-46 244 244 262 245

262 262

1 Chronicles 2:55 243 23:1-6 262 23:4 246 24:6 246 27:32 244

2 Chronicles 17:7-9 244 34:13 246 35:3-6 244

APOCRYPHA AND PSEUDEPIGRAPHA Aristeas, Letter of 120-27 260 2 Baruch 2:1 9:1-10:4 46:3

261 261 261

1 Enoch 1-36 12:3-4

258 258

320

15:1 72-82 92:1

258 254 258

1 Esdras 8:22

263

1 Maccabees 2:42 251 2:54 308

7:12-14 7:16

251 251

2 Maccabees 6:18 253 4 Maccabees 5:4 253-54

Index

Sirach 11 28:24 38:24-39:

38:32-33 39:1-10 39:1-3

254-57 254

255 255 256

50 50:27 51:13-30

321

256 257 256

D E A D SEA SCROLLS 4QpIsa c 23.ii. 10

4QpNah 3-4.i.2,7

4QpNah 3-4.iii.9 HQPs

279

279

279 256-57

NEW TESTAMENT Matthew 2:4 2:7-10 2:11 3:7 3:10 3:22 5:20 7:29 8:11 8:19 9:1 9:3 9:3-9 9:6-13 9:9-13 9:11 9:14-17 9:32-34 9:34 10:17 10:33 10:37 11:16 11:18 11:29 11:49 12:1-14 12:22-30 12:24

162 167 157 157, 158, 165 166 163 157, 164 158-59,163 165 158,162-63 162 158-59 168 168 42 163 168 168-69 163 195 157 61 165 157 165 160 168-69 168-69 163

12:38 13:52

14:1 15 15:1 15:12 15:31 16 16:1-12 16:1 16:6 16:11 16:12 16:21 17:10 17:22-23 20:18 21:15 21:15-16 21:23

21:45 21:45-46 22:15 22:34-35

157 151, 15859, 163, 267 157 167 157, 166 166 157 158 167 157, 165 157 157 157 157, 161 158-159, 163 161 157-161 157, 1 6 1 62, 170 178 1 57-5 8, 161, 163, 170 161, 163, 170 168 168, 170 168, 170,

22:34-40 22:41-46 22:45-46 23 23:2-3 23:2 23:4-7 23:8-12 23:13 23:14 23:15 23:23 23:25 23:27 23:29 23:33 23:34 26:3 26:47 26:57 26:59 26-27 27:1 27:3 27:6 27:9 27:12 27:20

183 163 170 168 170, 180, 229 165 157,229 165 165 157, 164 157, 164 157, 164 157, 164 157, 164 157, 164 157, 164 167 158, 163, 267 158, 161 158, 161 162 162 160 158, 161 158, 161 151 151 158, 161 158, 161

322

Index

27:42 27:62-65 28:11-15 28:12 Mark 1:21-28 1:22 2:1-3:6 2:6 2:13-17 2:16

2:18 2:24 3:2 3:6

3:16 3:22 6 6:4 6:21 7 7:1-5 7:1 7:19 8:11 8:15

8-16 9:11 9:12-13 9:14 9:31 10:2 10:33 11-15 11:18 11:27 12 12:12 12:13

162 168, 171 171 158

152 146 150 152,267 42 146-47, 149, 151, 157, 163, 168 146-47, 149, 169 146, 149 14647,149 146-47, 149, 169, 177 180 69, 146 151 151 294 151-52 14647,149, 151, 157 166 146 14647,149, 152, 164 146-47, 149, 152, 167 147 146,168 152 146,267 161 14647,149 147, 153 146,153 147-48,153 14748,153, 161, 163 301 161-163 14647,149, 177

12:18-27 12:18 12:28 12:28-34 12:32 12:35 12:35-40 12:37^40 12:38 13:9 14:1 14:10 14:43 14:53 15:1 15:3 15:10 15:11 15:31 16:6 Luke 2:41-51 5:17-6:11 5:17-28 5:17 5:21 5:27-32 5:30-32 5:30 5:33 5:34 5:36 6:2 6:6-11 6:7-11 6:7 6:11 7:29-30 7:30 7:36-39 7:36 7:40-47 8:3 9:22 9:57-58 10:25 11:15 11:37-53

154,167,76 147 146-47, 152, 163 153-54 146 146 148,152-53 182 146 195 147-48,153 147 147-48,153 147-48,153 147-48,153 147 147 147 147 169

118 177 175 174,176-77, 184 177 42 175 168-69,182 169 184 178 177 180 175 177, 182 177 179 174, 183 179 174 179 294 182 159 182-83 169 165,175, 180

11:37 11:45 11:46-52 11:53 11:53-54 12:1 12:28 13:31 13:33 14:1-6 14:1-3 14:1 14:3 14:26 15:1-2 15:2 16:14 17:20-21 17:20 17:36 18:9-14 18:10-14 19:39-40 19:39 19:47 20:27-40 20:1 20:19 20:39 20:46 22:2 22:66 24:10

178 183 183 174,182 180,183 167, 180 182 174-75,177 151 80 175 174-75,178 174, 185 61 179 175, 182 174-75, 178, 182 180 174-180 175 179 174 178 177 182 167 182 182 176 176, 182 182 182 294

John 1:19-28 1:24 3:1-2 3:10 4:1 4:44 6:41 6:52 7:1 7:10 7:14 7:30-31 7:32 7:37 7:44-46 7:45

188 189 190 190, 193 189 151 188 188 190 190 191 191 191 191 191 193

Index

7:47 7:50 7:52 8:3 8:13-20 9 9:13-17 9:13 9:15 9:16 9:18 9:22 9:40 11:45 11:46 11:47-48 11:53 11:57 12:10 12:19 12:36-50 12:42-43 12:42 16:2 18:3 19:39 21:12

191 190 190 188 191 192 192 192 192 192 192 192 192 193 190,193 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 190, 192 192 194 190 195

4:5 5:5 5:17 5:33-40 5:34-39 5:34 6:12 9:1-2 15:5 15:10 19:35 21:39 22:3 22:4-5 23 23:6-9 23:9 25:11 26:5 26:12

186 175 176, 187, 301 184 175 176,201 186 142 185 181 186,264 139 139, 142, 185 142 185,301 175-76 186 142 185 142

Romans 11:1

9:6 15:9

139 141

2 Corinthians 11:21-33 11:24 11:26

136 142 142

Galatians 1-2 1:13-14 1:16-17 1:17 1:18 1:22-23

141 141 292 137 138 137, 141

Philippians 3:2-4:1 3:3 3:4-6 3:5 3:8-9

134 135 135 134, 185 135

136

Acts of the Apostles

1 Corinthians

1 Thessalonians 2:9 139

4:1

1-4 1:20

1 Timothy 1:7 184

176, 187, 301

66 268

JOSEPHUS Antiquities 3:224-286 4:196-301 6:120 7:364 7:319 11:128 11:248 11:250 11:287 12-17 12:138^4 12:142

130 130 262 262 262 263 262 262 262 83 250 250

13:171-73 13:173 13:254-83 13:288-98 13:289 13:297-98 13:299300 13:301 13:311 13:320 13:372 13:379-83

115 111 85 86 125 116 86 87 116 89 87,89 89,278

323

13:399417 13:404 13:408-15 13:417 13:423-29 13:430-32 13:431 14:91 14:163-84 14:172 15:3 15:320

89 90 91 92 92 92 93 294 96 96 96 227

324

Index

15:368-71 15:371 16:319 17:32-60 17:41 17:42-45 17:148-67 17:346 18:3 18:9 18:11-25 18:11 18:23 20:199 199-203 20:264

99 116 264 99 99 100 101 116 108 108, 125 107, 112 111 108 80 105 265

Life 1-6 9-12 10

102 118 111

20-23 189-98 190-94 195-96 196-98

102 103, 189 201 105 103

Apion 2:145-296

130

War Preface 1:3, 6 1:67-68 1:70 1:78 1:85-106 1:96-98 1:107 1:113 1:170 1:479

82 86,89 87 116 89 91 91 116 294 263

1:529 1:532 1:567-71 1:648 1:648-55 2: Iff 2:111-13 2:118 2:119-166 2:169-74 2:228-31 2:233 2:237-43 2:239 2:251 2:409-417 2:422-29 2:628 3:387-408 4:151-325 5:527

264 264 99 265 101 107 108 108 107ff 84 84 104 155 104 299 101-02 155 299 97 105 228

PHILO Legatio ad Gaium 157 101 317 101

RABBINIC LITERATURE MISHNAH Abot 1:3 1:16-18 1:9 2:2 3:5 4:5

306 204,207 42 42 42 42

Makkot 1:6

233

Sotah 3:4

222-23

Tohorot 4:7 4:12

271 225

Yadaim 3:2 3:7 4:6-7

270 233 232

Yebamot 2:3-4 9:3

271 271

Niddah 4:22

232

Demai Orlah 2:2-3

217 3:9

Erubin 6:2

269

233-34 Parah

Hagiga 2:7

225

Kelim 13:7

271

3:7 232 11:5-6 271 Sanhedrin 10:1 304 11 270

Index

325

Rosh H S 1:15

228

Shabbat 1:15

225

Sotah 5:11-12

224

Taanit 4:2 (68a)

204

TOSEFTA Menahot 13:21

Demai 2:2-3:9 Hagiga 3:5 3:35 Megilla 4:15

228

2:17 Niddah 230 232

5:2-3

219

Parah 3:8

232

232

PALESTINIAN TALMUD Berakot 9:5 (13b)

223

Rosh H S 2:1 (57d)

228

Shabbat 16:8(15d)

294

Sotah 3:4 (19a) 5:7 (20c)

222 223

BABYLONIAN TALMUD Baba Batra 60b 224 Berakot 29a

86

Pesahim 57a

228

Qiddushin 66a 86

Sifre Deuteronomy 357 205

Rosh HS 22b

Abot de Rabbi Nathan

Erubin 68b

233

Hagiga 23a Ketubot 62b Megillah 105a

232,235

Sifre Numbers 112 227

Shabbat 13a 15a

228

225 204,207

Version A, ch. 5 305-07, 227 37 223

222

42

Zebahim 21a

135

Version B, ch. 10 305-07 45 223

OTHER LITERATURE Instruction of Khety, Son of Duauf 254

Strabo 16.2.40 (762)

87

About the Author is Associate Professor in the Depart­ ment of Theology at Boston College. He earned his Ph.D. from the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Litera­ ture at Yale University. He co-translated, along with Daniel Harrington, SJ, Targum Jonathan of the Former Prophets (volume 10 of The Aramaic Bible series). ANTHONY J. SALDARINI